Haryana

Karnal

CC/178/2021

Ms. Subina Kamboj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dell India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Karm Singh

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 178 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.24.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:27.02.2023

 

Ms. Subina Kamboj wife of Devender Singh, resident of house no.B-79, NDRI, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Divyasree Greens, Ground floor, 12/1,12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghatee village Varthur Hobli, Bengalure South Bengaluru-560071.

 

2.     M/s Balaji computers Care SCO no.1, Balaji Market, Railway Road, Karnal-132001 (Haryana).

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Karan Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Sonu Rana, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Opposite party no.2 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant had purchased a computer of Dell company from OP no.2 amounting to Rs.49,600/-, vide invoice no.79 dated 19.05.2020. OP no.2 has supplied the defective computer. Complainant has also complained to all the concerns of OPs through emails, telephonically and personally but OPs have failed to repair it in their multiple visits, the said computer is defective one and non-repairable and needed to be replaced and the said computer is not working since December, 2020. OPs had neither replaced the defective computer instrument nor refunded the cost of the computer. The study and career of son of complainant is badly affected, the whole family of complainant is disturbed, harassed and suffering irreparable recurring loss for which OPs are responsible. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.02.2021 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had purchased a Desktop Inspiron 3470 on 19.05.2020 from OP no.2 for only Rs.29,000/- and paid rest of the amount for add ones which are not provided, manufactured or recommended by Dell.. It is further pleaded that as per the records maintained by the technical team of OP, the complainant for the first time reported an issue on 11.11.2020 i.e. after a period of more than 6 months from the date of purchase for no power issues and the Technical support team of OP booked the service and resolved the issues post parts replacement. Thereafter, on 10.02.2021 another issue was reported with screen black out and slow performance and later system went to no power condition. But complainant without giving chance to the technical team of OP to check and resolve the issue, demanded replacement system/refund which was rightly declined by Tech support and again offered service as per warranty entitlement of the product. It is further pleaded that once the system is purchased and if they have any technical issues then the customers have to contact technical support team of OP, i.e. Dell  technical support at toll free number and report the technical issues. Once the complaint is registered, the technical support team of OP helps to assist the customer and resolve the reported issue on it. The repairs would not take 10 days and it would be faster. And option of not going to OP technical team is itself a violation of warranty and service policy and OP cannot be made liable for it. The complainant has rightly provided the option of service and replacement of defective part if the same could not be serviced but the complainant herself denied the OP to check and service the product.  It is further pleaded that OP no.1 is not privy to any communication between the complainant and OP no.2. Despite the fact that there is neither any deficiency in service nor any manufacturing defect in the desktop in question. OP no.1 in reply to legal notice offered paid service and replacement of parts if the system is found faulty against the defects and was advised to complainant to approach submit the product at service centre as soon as possible for getting the product checked and rectified as per written warranty policy. Also the interest of customer being paramount, in the alternate OP as a goodwill gesture also offered to refund Rs.29,000/- (being the amount paid for Dell desktop) which was denied by complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant is wrongly portraying the price of desktop as Rs.49,600/-. The amount paid over and above Rs.29,000/- are for accessories and add ones which are neither supplied, manufactured or recommended by the Dell. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 17.12.2021 of the Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1/A, copy of bill/invoice dated 19.05.2020 Ex.C1, copy of emails to OPs Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, copy of emails reply of OP no.1 Ex.C4, copy of reply of legal notice of OP no.2 Ex.C5, copy of reply of legal notice of OP no.1 Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 04.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Tripathi Ex.RW1/A, copy of service description Ex.R1, copy of Dell services description Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 09.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued complainant had purchased a computer of Dell company from OP no.2. OP no.2 has supplied the defective computer. Complainant has made complaint OPs through emails, telephonically and personally but OPs have failed to repair despite their several visits, the said computer is defective one and non-repairable and needed to be replaced and the said computer is not working since December, 2020. OPs had neither replaced the defective computer instrument nor refunded the cost of the computer and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that complainant had contacted the technical team of OP no.1 for the first time on 11.11.2020 for minor issues which were resolved after service. On 10.02.2021, complainant reported another issue with screen black out and slow performance and later system went to no power condition. But complainant without giving chance to the technical team of OP to check and resolve the issue, demanded replacement system/refund which was rightly declined by Tech support and again offered service as per warranty entitlement of the product. There is no manufacturing defect in the unit in question. He further argued that OP offered to refund Rs.29,000/- (being the amount paid for Dell desktop) which was denied by complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, on 19.05.2020 complainant had purchased a computer of Dell Company alongwith accessories from the OP no.2, vide invoice Ex.C1 and paid Rs.49,600/-.

12.           Complainant has alleged that from the very beginning the unit in question was having defect. The onus to prove her version lies upon the complainant. To prove her version, complainant has placed on file gmail Ex.C2 dated 19.03.2021, it is evident from the gmail Ex.C2, from December 2020, the problem was started in the computer in question. Again same problem started after two days, OPs removed extra 4mb RAM but problem could not be sorted out and same was occurred again and again. From the said gmail it has been proved that complainant made many complaints to the OPs with regard to defect in the computer but OPs failed to rectify the same. Legal notice Ex.C2 also served upon the OPs. It has been proved on record from the gmail Ex.C2 that the problem started in the computer in question during the warranty period and defect could not be rectified from the computer by the OPs despite their best efforts. Hence it has been proved that the computer in question was having manufacturing defect.

13.           Moreover, OP no.1 offered to refund Rs.29,000/-. It has also been proved from the offer, defect in the computer was not removable, that is why the OP was ready to refund the cost of the computer.

14.           As per invoice, complainant has paid Rs.49,600/- to the OPs cost of the computer and its accessories. Computer in question is having manufacturing defect and their parts also become useless for the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for whole cost of the computer i.e. Rs.49,600/- alongwith compensation for mental pain, agony and towards litigation expenses.

15.           OP no.2 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte, thus the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted. It is evident from the tax invoice Ex.C1, the cost of the computer is Rs.29,000/- and remaining paid amount of accessories which is not manufactured by OP no.1. Hence, the OP no.1 is liable to refund the amount of Rs.29,000/- and OP no.1 is liable to refund the remaining amount.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.49600/- to the complainant, out of which Rs.29,000/-is to be paid by OP no.1 and remaining amount is to be paid by OP no.2. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and for the litigation expense.. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its realization. However, complainant is also directed to handover the computer in question to the OP no.1 and its accessories to the OP no.2. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:27.02.2022.                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member